linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] locking/pvqspinlock: Fix missed PV wakeup problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57893DD8.8000707@hpe.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:47:36 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] locking/pvqspinlock: Fix missed PV wakeup problem

On 07/15/2016 04:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So the reason I never get around to this is because the patch stinks.
>
> It simply doesn't make sense... Remember, the harder you make a reviewer
> work the less likely the review will be done.
>
> Present things in clear concise language and draw a picture.
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:53:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Currently, calling pv_hash() and setting _Q_SLOW_VAL is only
>> done once for any pv_node. It is either in pv_kick_node() or in
>> pv_wait_head_or_lock().
> So far so good....
>
>> Because of lock stealing, a pv_kick'ed node is
>> not guaranteed to get the lock before the spinning threshold expires
>> and has to call pv_wait() again. As a result, the new lock holder
>> won't see _Q_SLOW_VAL and so won't wake up the sleeping vCPU.
> *brain melts* what!? pv_kick'ed node reads like pv_kick_node() and that
> doesn't make any kind of sense.

Sorry for the confusing. I will clean up the submit log to discuss what 
I actually mean.

> I'm thinking you're trying to say this:
>
>
> CPU0			CPU1			CPU2
>
> __pv_queued_spin_unlock_slowpath()
>    ...
>    smp_store_release(&l->locked, 0);
> 			__pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath()
> 			  ...
> 			  pv_queued_spin_steal_lock()
> 			    cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0
>
>
> 						pv_wait_head_or_lock()
>
>    pv_kick(node->cpu);  ---------------------->	pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
>
> 			__pv_queued_spin_unlock()
> 			  cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0) == _Q_LOCKED_VAL
>
> 						  for () {
> 						    trylock_clear_pending();
> 						    cpu_relax();
> 						  }
>
> 						  pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
>

Yes, that is the scenario that I have in mind.

> Which is indeed 'bad', but not fatal, note that the later pv_wait() will
> not in fact go wait, since l->locked will _not_ be _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>
> Is this indeed the 3 CPU scenario you tried to describe in a scant 4
> lines of text, or is there more to it?

You are right. The vCPU won't actually going to wait. It will get out 
and spin again. I will correct the patch title. However, it is still not 
good as it is not doing what it is suppose to do.

Cheers,
Longman